realtor1618
Registered
669 is the official record. 714 is not. Thats the bottom line as you asked for.
Jayson Shaw's 714 becomes 669?
- Thread starter loggerhead12
- Start date
That's all I needed to know. Thanks.
Truly contemptible!
Arnaldo ~ Jayson performed a magical in every way 714, IMO. Always will remain magical for any viewer. I remember a couple of occasions when it got back to Mosconi that his next opponent had made a few disparaging comments about Willie. Willie made it a point to play especially unearthly perfect, then up-close observers overheard Willie repeating -- word for word -- the gratuitous comment back to the defeated opponent's face just after he pocketed the winning shot. My point is that Jayson will be incrementally motivated by the cited maltreatment, and definitely amped up to achieve a flawless, near-unsurpassable highest number ever, very soon.
Jayson has amazing skills. He could easily have ran 714 cleanly. Unfortunately there was an inadvertent foul on ball 45 making this a 44 ball run. 669 balls in a row is amazing but not what was asked to be certified.
I understand Jayson is trying to put together another attempt with the goal being four digits, 1000! Even on the gaff table that would be an amazing accomplishment and should stand for awhile.
I wish Jayson well. His inadvertent and unnoticed at the time foul is far different than deliberately compromising to extend a run as we have seen john s do.
Hu
I understand Jayson is trying to put together another attempt with the goal being four digits, 1000! Even on the gaff table that would be an amazing accomplishment and should stand for awhile.
I wish Jayson well. His inadvertent and unnoticed at the time foul is far different than deliberately compromising to extend a run as we have seen john s do.
Hu
You mean John Schmidts gaff table? Jayson certainly didn't make his High run on a gaff table. Earls best for 6 days was 238 and Shane's was 308 all on the same table. John used heaters under his table with 6 inch corner pockets and 6.5 inch side pockets and played with no racking rules and polished and replaced the balls during his runs. As we have all got to see now John is a cheater and the public should demand to see the 626 run and have video experts view it frame by frame the same as Jaysons run to be truly fair. Jayson did none of the non sense that John did and has done his whole life and John was caught doing it just a few weeks ago.
What is your source of that information?
several local players that play in that poolhall.
Jayson leapfrogged John. At this point that’s all that matters. I’m sympathetic to the possibility John’s run wouldn’t live up to the same scrutiny. I think it’s fair to expect the same level of scrutiny for all high run claims moving forward. Public release of the video needs to be a component of future runs since BCA are considering defining the official requirements of an attempt. But John’s run has been made moot. So to me it seems continued focus on him is childishly petty. It’s time to act like adults.
They lied to you then. Can you name them? I don't like liars, and I'd like to know who they are.
Here are pictures of the pockets on the table where John Schmidt ran his 626. I saw some of his attempts in each of the three series he played in that room. The table was the same for all of the attempts there.
We have no focus on John. We just want to finally tell the public the complete story of everything
as you all wouldn't know unless we informed you. It's very important for the history and integrity of the game to know all details. Knowing Willie as I did I'm certain he would have thrown up to know of such violations and then played until he ran 7 or 800.
714 shots made consecutively is the number,
A paper thin graze of a ball didn't affect anything
A paper thin graze of a ball didn't affect anything
And if you were playing billiards and your finger touched an object ball but didn't move it much, would you still take the point?
I wouldn't stop someone if they did that on me in league or a tournament, and neither has anyone said" that's a foul your done" to me
At tournament carom play it's all ball fouls always. Call fouls on yourself.
I agree 100% about john. I saw his less than sterling qualities first hand long ago.
It was my understanding that the table Jayson was on had five inch or larger pockets and 760 cloth not usually used on the big tables. My apologies if Jayson wasn't on a table specially set up for the record attempts with unusual conditions. It was my understanding that they had roughly copied what was known about john's table other than the heaters which john couldn't make work anyway.
I very much regret Jayson's incidental foul. As for john's run, I remain dubious. He cut every corner he could legally and having seen proof of his willingness to "bend" things in other runs we have to question his record run. I do believe it is rendered mote by the acceptance of Jayson's run. I hope Jayson comes back with an unblemished run however.
Hu
Edited: A typo said that there was an OBJECT ball curve, of course I meant cue ball. I think that was clear from the context.
If we disregard the (cue) ball curve controversy, the pockets do look like near 5 inch pockets. I should know, I played on those size pockets for a lot of my time playing pool. It would be very difficult to be 100% certain about this kind of thing due to camera distortion and the distance. All I can say is, the pocket size doesn't seem OBVIOUSLY larger than a 5 inch would look to me.
The claims that have been made about that table used by John Schmidt are as follows:
1. Sanded slate,
2. Heated slate
3. 6 inch pockets
4. Polished balls (continuously)
It's all conjecture until solid evidence is provided. So far I have seen none. That (cue) ball curve looks super suspicious, but until hard evidence is provided or at least equal results are produced by experimental methods, nothing can be said for certain. The only thing I can say is, I've played pool for 20 years, and I've watched more Accu-Stats videos than is healthy for any human being, and I've never seen another ball behave like that on a level table. Never, unless you're talking about Cyclop balls or crazy 8 balls, that is. Not in snooker or even Billiards, either. There is only one explanation I find plausible and it is that the table isn't flat/and or- level. Is it deliberately out of level or not flat, or not, is the next question? We'll never know as the table has been atomized, never to be seen again, for all practical intents and purposes. Even if it were produced there would be no way to prove it's the same slate and impractically difficult, but not impossible to prove it's the same rails. So we'll never know for sure. This is why record tables should be kept for inspection before being dismantled. It would completely remove almost all concerns regarding shenanigans of this sort.
Of the 4 claims I think the heated slate is the least worrying to me personally, if there was any merit to it. It would in fact remove a lot of the environmental factor from the pool equation. I'm usually an old school kind of guy, but this would maybe be a step forward for our sport. I usually play in a dry climate but I think some people who don't would appreciate this a lot. It wouldn't really change the game, per se, but make it more uniform around the world. I'm having trouble seeing that as a bad thing for the pro game? We amateurs must put up with living without, as it would be impractically expensive. It's the same way in snooker, and it's completely fine.
Last edited:
John himself said he tried heated slate. It didn't work for him and I think was not in use when the record was claimed. He tried heaters under the table, not heat tracers or similar which I assume are used with real heated slates.
I believe current claims are that the balls were polished once during the run. Unless something unusual was put on the balls I don't see this as a big deal. It would help but wouldn't seem like a valid reason to disqualify a run.
I think that six inch pockets are pretty easy to disprove. They are big but not that big.
That leaves polished slate. This is unknown and will forever be unknown or open to question. With all we know, and considering the magic cue ball, I consider some slate shenanigans like recontoured mouths of pockets and some gentle contouring of the slate towards the pockets a distinct possibility.
There are many other things that could have been done. I am very glad that john's run quickly became just a footnote.
Hu
I suppose the final question I need answered is:
Does integrity matter?
I can visualize the spittle flying when you type this. Calm down!!
There's no evidence Schmidt used a gaff table, and good evidence it was not. You say you heard a rumour from anonymous people that Schmidt's table had 6" pockets, but the people who saw the table, and the BCA, say 5". Unless you can actually provide a source, you're just spreading rumours.
There were a lot of people spreading rumours about the Legends table, and you didn't give those credence. You didn't really provide any rebuttal either.
You keep saying it isn't about Schmidt, but you keep turning everything into an attack on him. We all understand you have personal problems with Schmidt and don't like him.
Serenity now!